New York Times Readers Opinions
The New York Times

Home
Job Market
Real Estate
Automobiles
News
International
National
Washington
Business
Technology
Science
Health
Sports
New York Region
Education
Weather
Obituaries
NYT Front Page
Corrections
Opinion
Editorials/Op-Ed
Readers' Opinions


Features
Arts
Books
Movies
Travel
Dining & Wine
Home & Garden
Fashion & Style
Crossword/Games
Cartoons
Magazine
Week in Review
Multimedia
College
Learning Network
Services
Archive
Classifieds
Book a Trip
Personals
Theater Tickets
Premium Products
NYT Store
NYT Mobile
E-Cards & More
About NYTDigital
Jobs at NYTDigital
Online Media Kit
Our Advertisers
Member_Center
Your Profile
E-Mail Preferences
News Tracker
Premium Account
Site Help
Privacy Policy
Newspaper
Home Delivery
Customer Service
Electronic Edition
Media Kit
Community Affairs
Text Version
TipsGo to Advanced Search
Search Options divide
go to Member Center Log Out
  

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  /

    Missile Defense

Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars" defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful? Can such an application of science be successful? Is a militarized space inevitable, necessary or impossible?

Read Debates, a new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every Thursday.


Earliest Messages Previous Messages Recent Messages Outline (10358 previous messages)

lchic - 11:11am Mar 23, 2003 EST (# 10359 of 10412)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

"" According to the Christian religion, human beings and all other created things exist for the greater glory of God; according to sociobiology, human beings and all other living things exist for the benefit of their genes.

The expression ‘their genes' is probably not perfectly orthodox, from the strict sociobiological point of view; being rather too apt to suggest that genes are part of our equipment, whereas (according to sociobiology) we are part of theirs. .........

Gods, in addition to being thought of as more intelligent and powerful than we are, are always thought of as being immortal. It was therefore to be expected that sociobiologists would wish to ascribe this attribute too, to genes. Here is a passage from Richard Dawkins on this subject. The ‘gene…does not grow senile; it is no more likely to die when it is a million years old than when it is only a hundred. It leaps from body to body down the generations, manipulating body after body in its own way and for its own ends, abandoning a succession of mortal bodies before they sink in senility and death. The genes are the immortals…' ........

......... every religion (or at any rate every one I know of) is incomprehensible when it is not obviously false.

http://www.royalinstitutephilosophy.org/articles/stove_new_religion.htm

book - The Extended Phenotype / Richard Dawkins

So Dawkins assumes 'true' religion ... uhmm ... which ? And why do folks like to hide and work under a banner of religion ?

almarst2003 - 11:18am Mar 23, 2003 EST (# 10360 of 10412)

There is huge difference between RELIGION and banner of religion

Just like between any IDEOLOGY and REALITY under the bunner of ideology.

Not that this ever was an obsticle for criminals to exploit both to the max.

lchic - 11:26am Mar 23, 2003 EST (# 10361 of 10412)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

John Paul said "Violence and arms can never resolve the problems of men."

____________

Raises the question

'What did JP do over the past 30 years to moderate tyrants ?'

_____________

The Incas had an interesting civilisation - collected taxes to use to give 'COMMON PROVISION' for the aged, sick and poor - and looked from high in the Andean Ranges to the 'heavens'.

The learned people observed goups of stars - contrasting their history with star movements an attitude of fatalism developed (wrongly) - so much so that they did not resist the C15 Spanish invasion that trashed their culture.

http://www.barbaraperrins.com/milky.htm

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=Incas+milky+way+fox+llama&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

lchic - 11:32am Mar 23, 2003 EST (# 10362 of 10412)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Interesting how the past (above) is seen as

CULTURAL IMMERSION TRAVEL

    AN AUTHENTIC CULTURAL IMMERSION
Whereas a present-cultural-immersion might be 'war' or 'tourism' ... or a visit to the cinema perhaps.

lchic - 11:44am Mar 23, 2003 EST (# 10363 of 10412)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

"" Shamanism is one of the more interesting religions in Mongolia.

Mongolians consider the sky "the father" and earth "mother nature".

The sharman acts as an intermediatery between the man and the spirits.

http://www.geocities.com/gobinogloo/mongolianinfo.html#reli

Comment : It's interesting to note that most often with religions there's the need for an intermediary, interpretation, guides, special buildings, furbishings and always 'collection plate'.

almarst2003 - 12:04pm Mar 23, 2003 EST (# 10364 of 10412)

Small tyrans can be moderated just by treat of force and diplomacy. After all, they are not about taking over other nations or the World.

Its a BIG TYRANS that can't be moderated untill destroyed.

More Messages Recent Messages (48 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  / Missile Defense





Home | Back to Readers' Opinions Back to Top


Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy | Contact Us